SCOTUS thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Would you confirm Kavanaugh?

Yes
18
60%
No
12
40%
 
Total votes : 30

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby StillCSG » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:20 pm

Brazen331 wrote:
StillCSG wrote:Kavanaugh vote CANCELLED


This is the male version of BiBL.


Unlike her... i post facts...

Grassley has cancelled the committee vote that was due to occur Thursday
Image
User avatar
StillCSG
 
Posts: 4454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:54 am
Location: My House
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby NavyBuc » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:45 pm

Will be interesting to see what becomes of this. She's going to have to provide some better evidence than what's out there now if this will stop him from being confirmed. But obviously if it's true, he shouldn't be confirmed. But proving that will be difficult.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby HamBone » Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:28 am

If Kav doesn’t get confirmed because of this...shouldn’t he be removed from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals?
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2371
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby mdb1958 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:10 am

HamBone wrote:If Kav doesn’t get confirmed because of this...shouldn’t he be removed from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals?


I could have dun it sometime in the last twelve years while he was in the 2nd highest court in the land. But recently its been noted to me some really really nice things could happen for me - even lots of little fat envelopes - wink wink.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 10469
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 169 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby HamBone » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:13 am

mdb1958 wrote:
HamBone wrote:If Kav doesn’t get confirmed because of this...shouldn’t he be removed from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals?


I could have dun it sometime in the last twelve years while he was in the 2nd highest court in the land. But recently its been noted to me some really really nice things could happen for me - even lots of little fat envelopes - wink wink.


Are you coming on to me?
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2371
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby mdb1958 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:18 am

I think somewhere while coming down the road of life the timing of things and common sense has evaded you. You could have this pointed out to you a thousand times and shame wouldnt be forthcoming and that's even worse.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 10469
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 169 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby mdb1958 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:20 am

Sorry HB, I was ranting towards most everybody.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 10469
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 169 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby mdb1958 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:51 am

Hamlet, anybody?
mdb1958
 
Posts: 10469
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 169 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:07 am

Moving this over here...

Zarniwoop wrote:That’s not what I read but maybe so. Everything about this is conflicting.


I don’t know what she expects the FBI to do. It’s past the statute of limitations, it’s not a criminal case and it’s not a case they would have even gotten in the first place. It seems doubtful they act on it

Sounds to me like she's being coached what to do in order to delay confirmation until after the mid-terms. Sorry if I come off as being skeptical of this whole thing, but I can't help it based on what I'm seeing/reading. And, like you, I don't even much like Kavanaugh.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12331
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 999 times
Been thanked: 428 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:21 am

Buc2 wrote:Moving this over here...

Zarniwoop wrote:That’s not what I read but maybe so. Everything about this is conflicting.


I don’t know what she expects the FBI to do. It’s past the statute of limitations, it’s not a criminal case and it’s not a case they would have even gotten in the first place. It seems doubtful they act on it

Sounds to me like she's being coached what to do in order to delay confirmation until after the mid-terms. Sorry if I come off as being skeptical of this whole thing, but I can't help it based on what I'm seeing/reading. And, like you, I don't even much like Kavanaugh.





DreadNaught wrote:What a shitshow this is.

I don't know if the accusation is credible, but I think it's fair to say the way and timing of it is HIGHLY irregular and reeks of a political game to resist and delay the appointment of a GOP nominated SCOTUS.

Despite what MB states, the timing of this is NOT irrelevant. Feinstein had this information and could of questioned Kavanaugh in interviews or while he was under oath at the confirmation hearings, instead she chose to release it at the 11hr via the media to create this exact situation.

The FBI would be wise to stay out of this, which it looks like they are. This isn't a criminal matter, much less a federal crime.

If the accuser refuses to be questioned the GOP should proceed with the vote. I feel the ball is in her court as to what happens next.




Responding to both of these.

The Senate is offering to work with this gal, that is good enough for me. They are trying to do their due diligence and have the meeting. I suppose they can call her and try to get her to commit to a particular date and do that one last thing (if she responds with a reasonable date they can hold off a bit more...she clearly would have to drop her asking for an FBI investigation as that simply isn't going to happen). If they don't get a commitment and she doesn't show up on Monday, then they should just continue forward with the nomination process.


As DN said, this is not a law enforcement thing, it's simply a testimony to Kavanaugh's character. I feel that the Senate is genuinely trying to help her testify but in the end the process has to move forward.



If this woman is getting cold feet and/or is wanting assurances she won't be attacked I completely empathize with her plight...and I hold none of this against her. But sadly that isn't something that can be guaranteed now or at any point in the future.
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6962
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 377 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:25 am

I don't think it speaks to his character at all. It was an incident that happened 30+ years ago. In high school. I bear little resemblance to the high school kid I was 40+ years ago and I don't mean physical resemblance.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12331
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 999 times
Been thanked: 428 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:33 am

Buc2 wrote:I don't think it speaks to his character at all. It was an incident that happened 30+ years ago. In high school. I bear little resemblance to the high school kid I was 40+ years ago and I don't mean physical resemblance.



Yes and No.

I agree that people absolutely change over time ... particularly on ethical behavior. I'm sure the 50 year old Brett Kavanaugh is nothing like the 17 year old. Just as I'm not like the 17 year old Zarni.


That being said, I do think there are some things that would disqualify someone from serving on the Supreme Court regardless of when they occurred and this is potentially one of them (obviously it depends on IF this did happen and what the details were).
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6962
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 377 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:48 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
Buc2 wrote:

That being said, I do think there are some things that would disqualify someone from serving on the Supreme Court regardless of when they occurred and this is potentially one of them (obviously it depends on IF this did happen and what the details were).


This.

For a job at the local "x" I 'd agree, but this is the Sepreme Court and this individual could be on the court for the next 30+ years. Their record should be absolutely perfect.

I'm torn on this, because there is no way to prove one way or another. I don't like that it's being used as a political tool by the accuser and the Democrats. I don't like the idea that someone could just say something like this and it can derail a career, but I also learn toward believing her story.

I've said it before. I'm fine if he's not confirmed.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5429
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:55 am

While there is merit to the "I'm a different person than I was in high school" argument, I think there's certain things that still speak to the person you are today. I'm completely different today too, but if I had the kind of mental capacity at 17 to torture my neighbor's pets, for example, that should still disqualify me from a position where I'm making judgments because it demonstrates a depraved mind. I think we should all agree on that.

The real question here is whether one feels that it takes a depraved mind to commit sexual assault/rape or if that's the kind of thing a well-adjusted teen can just grow out of and put behind them. Personally, I think the evidence has shown people don't tend to grow out of that and in many cases become repeat offenders even later in life.

I think the Senate is handling this the best they can. Give her the floor if she wants it because it should make a difference. If she chooses not to take the opportunity, then we have to move on as if the accusation didn't exist.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4078
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:55 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
Buc2 wrote:I don't think it speaks to his character at all. It was an incident that happened 30+ years ago. In high school. I bear little resemblance to the high school kid I was 40+ years ago and I don't mean physical resemblance.



Yes and No.

I agree that people absolutely change over time ... particularly on ethical behavior. I'm sure the 50 year old Brett Kavanaugh is nothing like the 17 year old. Just as I'm not like the 17 year old Zarni.


That being said, I do think there are some things that would disqualify someone from serving on the Supreme Court regardless of when they occurred and this is potentially one of them (obviously it depends on IF this did happen and what the details were).

True. The bolded part is the real biggie, though. Even if this did happen, all we have is her word that she didn't want it to happen and she waited over 30 years to say anything.

Perhaps she was a willing participant. We may never know. Perhaps she told someone about it when she saw her ex hs friend was being nominated for SCOTUS and they said, "Hey! You should totally use this story to try and keep that scumbag Trump from getting this guy confirmed." She, perhaps being a liberal herself (I don't know if she is or isn't, btw) writes/calls some Dem politician (Feinstein?) about it. And here we are.

Obviously, I don't know that this or anything even remotely like this happened. But given the circumstances and timing, forgive me, but I can't help but wonder. It's just all too convenient.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 12331
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 999 times
Been thanked: 428 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:14 am

bucfanclw wrote:While there is merit to the "I'm a different person than I was in high school" argument, I think there's certain things that still speak to the person you are today. I'm completely different today too, but if I had the kind of mental capacity at 17 to torture my neighbor's pets, for example, that should still disqualify me from a position where I'm making judgments because it demonstrates a depraved mind. I think we should all agree on that.

The real question here is whether one feels that it takes a depraved mind to commit sexual assault/rape or if that's the kind of thing a well-adjusted teen can just grow out of and put behind them. Personally, I think the evidence has shown people don't tend to grow out of that and in many cases become repeat offenders even later in life.

I think the Senate is handling this the best they can. Give her the floor if she wants it because it should make a difference. If she chooses not to take the opportunity, then we have to move on as if the accusation didn't exist.

Good post.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5429
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:44 am

bucfanclw wrote:While there is merit to the "I'm a different person than I was in high school" argument, I think there's certain things that still speak to the person you are today. I'm completely different today too, but if I had the kind of mental capacity at 17 to torture my neighbor's pets, for example, that should still disqualify me from a position where I'm making judgments because it demonstrates a depraved mind. I think we should all agree on that.

The real question here is whether one feels that it takes a depraved mind to commit sexual assault/rape or if that's the kind of thing a well-adjusted teen can just grow out of and put behind them. Personally, I think the evidence has shown people don't tend to grow out of that and in many cases become repeat offenders even later in life.

I think the Senate is handling this the best they can. Give her the floor if she wants it because it should make a difference. If she chooses not to take the opportunity, then we have to move on as if the accusation didn't exist.


This guys gets it.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3886
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Sep 19, 2018 1:54 pm

So it seems it comes down to whether the accuser shows up on Monday. The Senate has offered either private or public testimony.

The FBI won't be getting involved here. This isn't a criminal matter and they don't make character determinations. In addition I doubt they want to be viewed as a tool of a political party.

She can show up and see where this goes, or not show up and we'll proceed with a vote.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13788
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 557 times
Been thanked: 599 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:08 pm

yeah, there honestly isn't much more they can do. as i said before, this is the first time throughout any of these hearings that i think grassley is actually doing a good job. he has respected this woman's claim and invited her to testify, he said he considered getting an independent questioner to help prevent her from ridiculous questions and he has offered to keep the hearing closed.

in the end if i'm a voter and the gal doesn't show up, i simply disregard her claim (at least as best as I could...obviously it will have some subconscious effect on everyone).
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6962
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 377 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby RedLeader » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:00 pm

A second man named by Christine Blasey Ford as one of the four boys who attended the high school pool party in which Brett Kavanaugh allegedly tried to force himself on her has denied Ford's claims...
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2965
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 106 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Brazen331 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:53 pm

I can somewhat get not remembering the house but how can she not remember the year? She should know what grade she was in at the time and we can go from there.

If she can’t provide any more detail and refuses to testify, this should be over. I think the Dems are using this woman. It’s obvious that they don’t care about what happened here; they are hoping they can win the Senate and not fill the seat for the rest of Trump’s term. It’s only about delay.

Does she suffer any consequence if it is proved she is lying?
Brazen331
 
Posts: 3067
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Alpha » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:17 pm

Brazen331 wrote:It’s only about delay.


Kind of like the 'Pubs did.

I know it's all sunshine and roses now...but I'm an old guy...and I've seen the "worm turn" many times.

The way the 'Pubs have been running things for the last 6 years (give or take) is going to come back and bite them in the ass.

Delaying Obama's nomination until AFTER the election...and now expediting this guy's nomination and not waiting until the mid-terms? Just wait until they don't control the House and/or Senate...

Don't bother with the excusues...I won't be around to play...just don't come bitching here, when the Dem's **** y'all in response.
Alpha
 
Posts: 4256
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:51 am
Location: St. Pete
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby MJW » Wed Sep 19, 2018 11:22 pm

Alpha wrote:
Brazen331 wrote:It’s only about delay.


Kind of like the 'Pubs did.

I know it's all sunshine and roses now...but I'm an old guy...and I've seen the "worm turn" many times.

The way the 'Pubs have been running things for the last 6 years (give or take) is going to come back and bite them in the ass.

Delaying Obama's nomination until AFTER the election...and now expediting this guy's nomination and not waiting until the mid-terms? Just wait until they don't control the House and/or Senate...

Don't bother with the excusues...I won't be around to play...just don't come bitching here, when the Dem's **** y'all in response.


You could remove the party names and this would be evergreen.

The party controlling Congress ALWAYS reshapes the rules of the game to expand their power, under the delusion they'll always be in power.
Then when they're not anymore, the other party cashes in on those changes, and then makes more changes.
Rinse, Repeat.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 9227
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Brazen331 » Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:09 am

Alpha wrote:
Brazen331 wrote:It’s only about delay.


Kind of like the 'Pubs did.

I know it's all sunshine and roses now...but I'm an old guy...and I've seen the "worm turn" many times.

The way the 'Pubs have been running things for the last 6 years (give or take) is going to come back and bite them in the ass.

Delaying Obama's nomination until AFTER the election...and now expediting this guy's nomination and not waiting until the mid-terms? Just wait until they don't control the House and/or Senate...

Don't bother with the excusues...I won't be around to play...just don't come bitching here, when the Dem's **** y'all in response.


We agree on this. They did this with Garland now we have payback. The difference is Garland’s reputation was not smeared. I think the Dems know that this claim is BS.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 3067
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:45 am

Alpha wrote:
Brazen331 wrote:It’s only about delay.


Kind of like the 'Pubs did.

I know it's all sunshine and roses now...but I'm an old guy...and I've seen the "worm turn" many times.

The way the 'Pubs have been running things for the last 6 years (give or take) is going to come back and bite them in the ass.

Delaying Obama's nomination until AFTER the election...and now expediting this guy's nomination and not waiting until the mid-terms? Just wait until they don't control the House and/or Senate...

Don't bother with the excusues...I won't be around to play...just don't come bitching here, when the Dem's **** y'all in response.


Dems did change the rules thanks to Harry Reid. McConnell actually warned them not to on a prophetic statement.

As far as the hearing goes, why should the GOP wait til after the midterms other than it's what the Dems want? What precedent is there?

Speaking of precedent, there was precedent for delaying Garland in a Presidential election year, especially with a lame duck in office. It's places a SCOTUS seat on the ballot for the PEOPLE to decide on.

Otherwise I agree the pendulum swings back in forth.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13788
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 557 times
Been thanked: 599 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby mightyleemoon » Thu Sep 20, 2018 6:19 am

Buc2 wrote:I don't think it speaks to his character at all. It was an incident that happened 30+ years ago. In high school. I bear little resemblance to the high school kid I was 40+ years ago and I don't mean physical resemblance.


It speaks to his character if he is lying about it now.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby mightyleemoon » Thu Sep 20, 2018 6:28 am

Some woman being interviews on NPR this morning was talking about how Ford had talked with a therapist about it some years ago. And that the therapist had detailed notes. Is that confirmed? A quick googling didn't uncover much.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby mdb1958 » Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:05 am

bucfanclw wrote:While there is merit to the "I'm a different person than I was in high school" argument, I think there's certain things that still speak to the person you are today. I'm completely different today too, but if I had the kind of mental capacity at 17 to torture my neighbor's pets, for example, that should still disqualify me from a position where I'm making judgments because it demonstrates a depraved mind. I think we should all agree on that.

The real question here is whether one feels that it takes a depraved mind to commit sexual assault/rape or if that's the kind of thing a well-adjusted teen can just grow out of and put behind them. Personally, I think the evidence has shown people don't tend to grow out of that and in many cases become repeat offenders even later in life.

I think the Senate is handling this the best they can. Give her the floor if she wants it because it should make a difference. If she chooses not to take the opportunity, then we have to move on as if the accusation didn't exist.



Just exactly what did you do to your neighbors pets Clewiston. You start a post out like that, your fessing up to something.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 10469
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 169 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby HamBone » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:02 am

Christine Blasey Ford getting death threats, if her lawyer is telling the truth, is ridiculous. I heard on the radio that Ford did not want her name released to the public...if that's true, then leaking her name was also ridiculous.
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2371
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:09 am

HamBone wrote:Christine Blasey Ford getting death threats, if her lawyer is telling the truth, is ridiculous. I heard on the radio that Ford did not want her name released to the public...if that's true, then leaking her name was also ridiculous.

That should be a surprise to no one that she's getting death threats. People in these positions always do by maniacs and it happens regardless of ideology.

Interesting that she didn't want to be doxxed. I wonder if that's why she's so close to dropping the whole thing.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14782
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 673 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mdb1958 and 12 guests